From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E.F. Hutton Co., Inc. v. Tretiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1988
140 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 2, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The Supreme Court, Nassau County, properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion to consolidate and we perceive no reason to substitute our discretion for that of the Supreme Court. The two actions involve entirely separate and distinct transactions and the proof relative to each lawsuit will not overlap in any substantial respect (see, Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v Skyview Metals, 117 A.D.2d 765, 767; JM Mechanical Corp. v Washington Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 80 A.D.2d 884, 886). Moreover, the plaintiff in this action would suffer prejudice if the two actions were consolidated. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

E.F. Hutton Co., Inc. v. Tretiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1988
140 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

E.F. Hutton Co., Inc. v. Tretiak

Case Details

Full title:E.F. HUTTON CO., INC., Respondent, v. BARRI TRETIAK, Respondent, and ANNE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 2, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Norrell v. State

The motion should not be granted where there are questions of fact. An affirmative defense should not be…

Mara Bros. General Contractors, Inc. v. Rogers

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.). Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs…